SRIPATI MAHATO Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last occasion I had directed the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners to serve a notice upon the respondents, indicating that this matter shall be taken up for further consideration after a fortnight. I had further directed that the respondents may also be intimated that if no one appears on their behalf when the matter was next taken up for hearing, the Court would pass appropriate orders in their absence.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that he has duly given such notice upon the respondents. He is directed to file an affidavit of service in course to tomorrow, indicating such service. Today, in spite of this matter appearing in the list and in spite of fresh service, pursuant to my order dated 15th February, 2007, none appears on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) This is a matter pending before this Court for ten years. The writ petition discloses facts, which on a plain reading, is a clear indication of the appalling State of affairs in respect of non-disbursement of pension and other retiral dues by the State authorities in favour of a primary school teacher, who retired in 1989 and died in 1995, after serving the school since 1946, without getting a single penny of his retiral dues.